Matter of Rampolla v Banking Dept. of the State of N.Y.
2012 NY Slip Op 02040 [93 AD3d 526]
March 20, 2012
Appellate Division, First Department
Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431.
As corrected through Wednesday, April 25, 2012

In the Matter of Robert Rampolla, Appellant,
Banking Department of the State of New York et al., Respondents.

[*1] Westerman Ball Ederer Miller & Sharfstein, LLP, Uniondale (Richard F. Harrison of counsel), for appellant.

Eric T. Schneiderman, Attorney General, New York (Ann P. Zybert of counsel), for respondents.

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Barbara Jaffe, J.), entered January 25, 2011, denying the petition to annul respondent Banking Department's determination, dated March 23, 2010, which denied petitioner's application for a mortgage loan origination license, and dismissing the proceeding brought pursuant to CPLR article 78, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Respondent's determination denying petitioner's application for a mortgage loan origination license was not arbitrary and capricious. Petitioner contends that in determining his application respondent should have considered the factors set forth in Correction Law § 753, which pertains to the application for a license or employment of a person previously convicted of a criminal offense (see Correction Law § 752). However, Banking Law § 599-e provides, "Notwithstanding any other law, the superintendent shall not issue a mortgage loan origination license" to any applicant who has been convicted of a felony that "involved an act of fraud [or] dishonesty," except that "the superintendent may, in his or her discretion, disregard a conviction where the felon has been pardoned" (§ 599-e [1] [b] [ii]). Correction Law § 753, "a prior general statute," must "yield[ ] to [Banking Law § 599-e,] a later specific or special statute" (see Matter of Niagara County v Power Auth. of State of N.Y., 82 AD3d 1597, 1601 [2011], lv dismissed in part and denied in part 17 NY3d 838 [2011] [internal quotation marks omitted]). While petitioner was granted a Certificate of Relief from Disabilities automatically imposed by law by reason of [*2]his felony conviction, pursuant to Correction Law § 701, he has not been pardoned. Therefore, the superintendent was required to deny his application. Concur—Andrias, J.P., Sweeny, Moskowitz, Freedman and Manzanet-Daniels, JJ. [Prior Case History: 31 Misc 3d 161.]